Is Domestic violence always domestic violence?

Let's put this thread back on track. You can support both woman's rights and men's rights.

What I mean by this is that there are gender stereotypes and policies in our society that disadvantage women. I would include the gender pay gap and the need for physical safety as examples of this. There are also gender stereotypes and policies in our society that disadvantage men. Equal parental and custody rights are an example of that.

I haven't seen a good argument why both sets of concerns shouldn't be important, or that support of one side has to be in opposition to the other.

People seem to be rather upset at the idea that someone would be pushing for both, I am a bit perplexed by this.

Equality seems (to me) such a strange and outdated thing to target/reference.

I prefer equity as a goal.



http://theequityline.org/wp/2014/03/12/equity-and-equality-are-not-equal/

http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/about/pubs/genderwage/wagegap.php


http://growthandjustice.org/news/2013-04/the-difference-between-equity-and-equality

http://www.canadianlabour.ca/news-room/publications/quick-education-pay-equity-womens-economic-equality

http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2009-10/html/management-and-accountability/social-justice-and-equity.htm

That's interesting EhBeth. I mostly agree with the equity argument. But, isn't that a different issue?

There is some complexity here. I do believe that engineers are paid because they highly educated and do commercially productive work. We should be developing more female engineers. Deciding that engineering is a "male profession" makes me a little uncomfortable (my daughter wants to be an engineer and is already writing web pages in HTML). That being said if there are professions that require an equivalent amount of skill and training, the salaries should be equivalent.

The Lily Ledbetter Fair pay act addresses the situation when men are paid more then women for doing the exact same job. I believe that this is a basic injustice.

These two issues aren't mutually exclusive. We can promote the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and still work on pay equity.

Also EhBeth, this equity concept was part of the Fair Sentencing Act which addressed the injustice that crack cocaine (used more often by African Americans) was receiving harsher sentencing then powdered cocaine (used more often by White Americans).

I agree with this concept. I still think that equal sentences for equal crimes (not differentiated by the race or gender of the perpetrators) is an important principle.

I feel the same way about pay equity as I feel about social equity and equity in sentencing and equity in custodial arrangements. I don't think equality is meaningful in any of these examples - or in any other case (that I know of) where equality is suggested as the goal.

Equity has much more meaning and value for me.

The reality is that you will rarely, if ever, find cases where sentencing can truly be equal. Every case, every person, is different.

You can set a goal of equitable sentencing, and have some hope of success. IMNSHO, there will always be something wrong with attempts to target equal sentencing. This is one of the reasons that there are sentencing ranges in most jurisdictions.

Equality was big in the 1960's and 1970's. It was found to be lacking. Far too many variables with anything involving people. You can get equal slices of a pie/piece of wood, but equal justice/equal custody etc not so much.

Equity is doing a bit better. Hopefully something truly balanced will come along with more and better research in the social sciences.

Hmmm EhBeth. I generally think of equity as going further than equality, but they are related.

What do you think about the crack vs powdered cocaine case. Do you agree that the Act making sentences for these two forms of cocaine equal is an example of equity?

Black people get consistently higher sentences then white people for the same crime in the US. Don't you agree that this is unjust?

These two things to me are both unjust. It seems to me that the first is an issue of inequity and the second is an issue of inequality. They are both wrong.

Sure EhBeth. Every case is different.

But if you look at all the cases in general, comparing the sentences that white people get for a specific crime with the sentences that black people get... you will find that across the a wide range of crimes Black people get harsher sentences. The data are clear that Black people get harsher sentences then white people for the exact same crime.

Don't you agree that this is indicative of injustice? What we can do about it is a difficult question, but maybe at least we can agree that Black people in the US are disadvantaged when it comes to prison sentences. To me it is indicative of negative racial stereotypes still in our society.

That is why I believe equity is a more meaningful goal than equality in sentencing.

I don't understand why you don't think both are important. I supported both the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (which was an example of equality) and the Fair Sentencing Act (which is an example of equity). I feel both were important steps to take. But OK, we disagree.

I am sure you see where I am going with this...

How do you think equity, and equality apply when it comes to custody arrangments? (As a divorced father this is a rather important and personal issue for me).

In the case of custody, a judge could say each parent getting a child for 50% of the hours in a week is equal custody. One parent gets all of the sleeping hours. That is not equitable.

or one parent gets all of the vacation weeks, while the other gets primarily school weeks. Equal, but not equitable.

I've seen examples of both of the above - many of the second example.

I see more examples of equitable custodial arrangements now than I did 20/30/40 years ago - in our jurisdiction, partly due to one of cavfancier's aunts, an important activist judge. I also see more custodial arrangements that factor the children's opinions into the assessment of equity. This was once a serious gap IMO.

As a result, we see fewer cases of 'glamour' parents now, which I think is good for children and families.

The view here is that equality is a minor subset of equity.

We had to go through the equality battles of the 1950's and 1960's to get to identifying equity as a more meaningful outcome.

Equal pay for work of equal value = equity.

Equal pay for equal work is a subset of that.

I think you and I are in agreement EhBeth. I can't find anything to disagree with in what you are saying.

Thank you for this discussion. I enjoyed it.

women tending to take more time off and to also end or interrupt their careers make them less valuable to the organization. when you peg it all on the work today that women do is equal in value to the work that men do today so they should be paid the same you dont allow the business to get compensated for women being less valuable to them. It has not been proven to my satisfaction that job markets are not working today.